So I've been doing some work on playback and recording today. I had a look at c# and the .NET framework, however in order to get sound recording working you have to either use the weird microsoft windows sound library, or directX directsound. Once setting those up, it's *mountains* of code to get the actual thing working.
Too much.
There had to be a simpler implmentation.
And there is!
I went back to Processing and looked at the ESS sound library. Success! I quickly whipped up two programs. One plays a .wav file from a selected directory. The other, Records input from the microphone and saves it to the hdd as a .wav file.
Now the only problem with this, is that when recording, the microphone input is echo-ed through the speakers. I'm sure there's a way to stop this, so I'll figure this out when I next work on the project ( probably tommorrow or friday ).
Thankyou processing! you're awesome.
- Anthony
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Lecture - Liveblogging
Today we're doing a recap on our groups progress, and discussing the catalog essay ? Which is the new assignment I think, but more on that later.
Seems most groups seem to be getting along with their ideas nice and slowely. Still at the interum phases of design, which is good - because I think we're still at the start of the design phase too. Yay!
I'll be posting a progress report thisafternoon, write up a list of tasks milestones, things like that. Sort out who is doing what, and by when. Also need to post to the newsgroups, but they seem to be down at the moment.
Yay our presentation went well. Was only 2 minutes long, but Megan and I seem to know what we're talking about - yay for us. Pierre prolly doesn't have much of an idea as he wasn't here last week and I've been pretty slack communication wise. But we'll have a small group meeting after the lecture.
ok! on with the rest of the lecture
Catalog Essay ( 500,600 words, prettyness is ecouraged ) - Due Friday 18th, 9am :: Group Assignment
The catalog essay is a two page description of our project. Written to form part of a while studio catalog for the end of semester exhibit.
- Imagine the exhibit finished, get a picture of the work and give a description
- Give a description of the audience experience
- Talk about reasoning behind how you thing experience is achieved
Suitable for educated or un-educated gallery audience. Uninformed writing style, or informed "interactive art" experty person.
All of this is listed in the criteria sheet.
We'll be using google documents to write this if it's a group assignment. I love google documents. ( Multiple Editors of the Same File )
Seems most groups seem to be getting along with their ideas nice and slowely. Still at the interum phases of design, which is good - because I think we're still at the start of the design phase too. Yay!
I'll be posting a progress report thisafternoon, write up a list of tasks milestones, things like that. Sort out who is doing what, and by when. Also need to post to the newsgroups, but they seem to be down at the moment.
Yay our presentation went well. Was only 2 minutes long, but Megan and I seem to know what we're talking about - yay for us. Pierre prolly doesn't have much of an idea as he wasn't here last week and I've been pretty slack communication wise. But we'll have a small group meeting after the lecture.
ok! on with the rest of the lecture
Catalog Essay ( 500,600 words, prettyness is ecouraged ) - Due Friday 18th, 9am :: Group Assignment
The catalog essay is a two page description of our project. Written to form part of a while studio catalog for the end of semester exhibit.
- Imagine the exhibit finished, get a picture of the work and give a description
- Give a description of the audience experience
- Talk about reasoning behind how you thing experience is achieved
Suitable for educated or un-educated gallery audience. Uninformed writing style, or informed "interactive art" experty person.
All of this is listed in the criteria sheet.
We'll be using google documents to write this if it's a group assignment. I love google documents. ( Multiple Editors of the Same File )
Assignment 6 : Compare and Contrast Project
Introduction
This extended blog entry is intended as a examination and comparison between the project I'm currently undertaking for studio 5 ( “The Oracle” ), and another project. In this entry I'll be discussing the relation between the chosen project, as well as discussing the conceptual similarities, the intended audience experiences, and the technology behind each project. The interactive exhibit I have chosen to discuss is unfortunately not one that I found when searching for related assignments at the start of semester as it would have been a source of great information and advice. The project in question is “Interactive Radio : Exploring Visitor Stories using a Radio Interface” by Eoin Brazil and Mikael Fernstrom. It was showcased as part of the “Re-Tracing the Past” exhibition held at the “Hunt Museum” in Limerick, Ireland in 2003.
Description
“Interactive Radio” is an isolated aspect of a whole interactive experience as part of an exhibition entitled : “Re-Tracing the Past”. The radio itself is used as a medium for listening to the opinions of fellow gallery patrons. The full exhibition is divided up into two rooms: “The Study Room”, and the “Room of Opinion”. The “Study Room” is an inspired representation of a room in the home of the man whom the exhibit centres around. The room itself contains 4 interactive items; A Mirror, A Trunk, A Desk, and The Radio ( I'll only be examining the radio ). Within the “Room of Opinion” there are 5 podiums. Four of them contain representations of objects contained within the “study room”, while the final podium houses a telephone. This telephone records gallery patron's opinions and thoughts on exhibits. These recordings are then echoed around the “Room of Opinion” ( through speakers embedded in the plinths ), and then transmitted through to the radio where users can “tune” in to certain opinions on certain items within the collection.
Conceptual Focus
The concepts behind “interactive radio” are very similar to the underlying concept behind my project “the oracle”. Both centre around the recording of museum patron's opinions / thoughts, and then playing them back in a random or symbolic way. In a sense, both of the exhibits encourage active reflection and interaction from the participants.
Another strong linking factor between the two projects is the use of metaphor in the design. Using a telephone and a radio to save and play back the recorded thoughts and ideas from the participants and in the oracles case, the Tarot cards, and illusion of a fortune teller behind a curtain.
The “Interactive Radio” uses two physical items for interaction, one for the recording, and one for the playback. “The Oracle” only uses one physical point of interaction; The Tarot Cards. The other form of interaction is based around the illusion that there is another person ( or persons ) in the room. The concept behind the “Interactive Radio” is based around physical interaction and audience participation, while “the Oracle” focuses more on audience participation and the intangible things that people say and think. It would seem logical for the “interactive radio” to produce it's sound from a physical source, and for “the oracle” to produce it's audio from a personified (albeit illusionary) source in keeping with the relevant metaphors.
One of the main differences between the two projects is in the playback of the recording itself. While in “The oracle” users select a category, and get a random response from within said category, in the “interactive radio” exhibit, users are able to select a category ( or radio “band” ), and then a “station” on that band. Each recorded sound byte is allocated it's own “station” and users can scan through these as if they were tuning a normal radio. This difference I believe is strictly tied to the metaphor. On a radio, one can select exactly what they want with precision, however when asking for your fortune, you never quite know exactly what sort of answer you might receive.
Audience Experience
The “Interactive Radio” project was designed to encourage active participation and reflection on the surrounding exhibits. The benefit of allowing users to comment and then listen back to their own ( and other users ) comments, is that users can get different feedback each time they visit the exhibition. This encourages the audience to make repeat visits, each time they receive a different experience. “The Oracle” aims to have a similar audience experience. As the database of conversation grows, “the oracle” will be able to provide new and ever changing answers to the selected categories and questions put to it by the participants.
The exhibits themselves are nothing without the audience to interact with them. The more users take part, the greater the project experience will be for those who choose to interact with it. The main differences between “The Oracle” and the “interactive Radio” experience would be the locative distance. The “Interactive Radio” has it's recording and playback facilities in different rooms, whereas “the Oracle” has the entire set up within the one booth. Both situations have advantages and disadvantages. By having the recording and playback facilities at different locations, the “Interactive Radio” allows two people to be interacting with the same system at the same time. “The Oracle” only allows one person into the booth at any particular time, this however suits the metaphor behind the project itself and helps to create the intimate atmosphere that one would expect in a fortune teller's booth.
Although there are differences in the intended audience reaction and interaction between the two projects, the underlying experience is fundamentally the same. To encourage active participation and reflection from the users in order to gain an understanding of people's thoughts and ideas, but to increase the exhibits knowledge base and create a new and changing experience for patrons.
Technology
The technological requirements of both projects are extremely similar : Both require the ability to select and categorise input. Both require the ability to record and store live audio. Both require the ability to playback and listen to pre-recorded audio. The implementation of these technologies differ slightly however. Inspiration could be taken from the “interactive radio” project as a more efficient method of recording, playback and storage.
Although the technology for “the Oracle” has yet to be entirely finalized, it is already understood that we need to use some sort of programming language to record, save, and catalogue a collection of sound bytes. While also being able to play back particular sounds based on the category selected by the participant. The Tarot cards will use a form of RFID for selection criteria, and would therefore need some sort of interface with the computer system; Most likely a phidget. Audio experiments have been made in “Processing”, however the possibility of change to C# or Java is still possible at this stage of development. Comparing this to the technology behind the “interactive radio” there are some possible areas of influence. In order to save a statement or opinion into the telephone, participants must insert a 'key card' into a slot to trigger the recording process. Not only does this start the recording, it also tells the program which of the 4 objects the user is commenting on. These key cards use a form of RFID ( similar to our Tarot Card RFID system ) to categorise the recordings into certain locations. Once recorded, the sounds are stored in a series of directories which are analysed and read by a Microsoft .NET based system, with the main coding written in C#. The Microsoft .NET structure was chosen because it has the ability to analyse directories and their contents on the fly so as to keep up to date with the amount of .wav recorded data stored on the computer. “The Oracle” was going to use a database to store this information, however it would seem the .NET framework provides a much more efficient and detailed option for data storage and retrieval.
Conclusion
The “Interactive Radio” project is fundamentally very similar to the concepts and ideas that were collected together to make “the oracle”. They both have a strong concept metaphor, they both have elements of physical interaction, they both work with recording conversations and opinions and playing them back to users. There are slight differences in the implementation and in the metaphors used, but the principles behind the two remain the same. After analysing this project for this blog report, I've taken into consideration possible technological implementation techniques that may prove useful when developing the program backbone for “the oracle” itself.
This extended blog entry is intended as a examination and comparison between the project I'm currently undertaking for studio 5 ( “The Oracle” ), and another project. In this entry I'll be discussing the relation between the chosen project, as well as discussing the conceptual similarities, the intended audience experiences, and the technology behind each project. The interactive exhibit I have chosen to discuss is unfortunately not one that I found when searching for related assignments at the start of semester as it would have been a source of great information and advice. The project in question is “Interactive Radio : Exploring Visitor Stories using a Radio Interface” by Eoin Brazil and Mikael Fernstrom. It was showcased as part of the “Re-Tracing the Past” exhibition held at the “Hunt Museum” in Limerick, Ireland in 2003.
Description
“Interactive Radio” is an isolated aspect of a whole interactive experience as part of an exhibition entitled : “Re-Tracing the Past”. The radio itself is used as a medium for listening to the opinions of fellow gallery patrons. The full exhibition is divided up into two rooms: “The Study Room”, and the “Room of Opinion”. The “Study Room” is an inspired representation of a room in the home of the man whom the exhibit centres around. The room itself contains 4 interactive items; A Mirror, A Trunk, A Desk, and The Radio ( I'll only be examining the radio ). Within the “Room of Opinion” there are 5 podiums. Four of them contain representations of objects contained within the “study room”, while the final podium houses a telephone. This telephone records gallery patron's opinions and thoughts on exhibits. These recordings are then echoed around the “Room of Opinion” ( through speakers embedded in the plinths ), and then transmitted through to the radio where users can “tune” in to certain opinions on certain items within the collection.
Conceptual Focus
The concepts behind “interactive radio” are very similar to the underlying concept behind my project “the oracle”. Both centre around the recording of museum patron's opinions / thoughts, and then playing them back in a random or symbolic way. In a sense, both of the exhibits encourage active reflection and interaction from the participants.
Another strong linking factor between the two projects is the use of metaphor in the design. Using a telephone and a radio to save and play back the recorded thoughts and ideas from the participants and in the oracles case, the Tarot cards, and illusion of a fortune teller behind a curtain.
The “Interactive Radio” uses two physical items for interaction, one for the recording, and one for the playback. “The Oracle” only uses one physical point of interaction; The Tarot Cards. The other form of interaction is based around the illusion that there is another person ( or persons ) in the room. The concept behind the “Interactive Radio” is based around physical interaction and audience participation, while “the Oracle” focuses more on audience participation and the intangible things that people say and think. It would seem logical for the “interactive radio” to produce it's sound from a physical source, and for “the oracle” to produce it's audio from a personified (albeit illusionary) source in keeping with the relevant metaphors.
One of the main differences between the two projects is in the playback of the recording itself. While in “The oracle” users select a category, and get a random response from within said category, in the “interactive radio” exhibit, users are able to select a category ( or radio “band” ), and then a “station” on that band. Each recorded sound byte is allocated it's own “station” and users can scan through these as if they were tuning a normal radio. This difference I believe is strictly tied to the metaphor. On a radio, one can select exactly what they want with precision, however when asking for your fortune, you never quite know exactly what sort of answer you might receive.
Audience Experience
The “Interactive Radio” project was designed to encourage active participation and reflection on the surrounding exhibits. The benefit of allowing users to comment and then listen back to their own ( and other users ) comments, is that users can get different feedback each time they visit the exhibition. This encourages the audience to make repeat visits, each time they receive a different experience. “The Oracle” aims to have a similar audience experience. As the database of conversation grows, “the oracle” will be able to provide new and ever changing answers to the selected categories and questions put to it by the participants.
The exhibits themselves are nothing without the audience to interact with them. The more users take part, the greater the project experience will be for those who choose to interact with it. The main differences between “The Oracle” and the “interactive Radio” experience would be the locative distance. The “Interactive Radio” has it's recording and playback facilities in different rooms, whereas “the Oracle” has the entire set up within the one booth. Both situations have advantages and disadvantages. By having the recording and playback facilities at different locations, the “Interactive Radio” allows two people to be interacting with the same system at the same time. “The Oracle” only allows one person into the booth at any particular time, this however suits the metaphor behind the project itself and helps to create the intimate atmosphere that one would expect in a fortune teller's booth.
Although there are differences in the intended audience reaction and interaction between the two projects, the underlying experience is fundamentally the same. To encourage active participation and reflection from the users in order to gain an understanding of people's thoughts and ideas, but to increase the exhibits knowledge base and create a new and changing experience for patrons.
Technology
The technological requirements of both projects are extremely similar : Both require the ability to select and categorise input. Both require the ability to record and store live audio. Both require the ability to playback and listen to pre-recorded audio. The implementation of these technologies differ slightly however. Inspiration could be taken from the “interactive radio” project as a more efficient method of recording, playback and storage.
Although the technology for “the Oracle” has yet to be entirely finalized, it is already understood that we need to use some sort of programming language to record, save, and catalogue a collection of sound bytes. While also being able to play back particular sounds based on the category selected by the participant. The Tarot cards will use a form of RFID for selection criteria, and would therefore need some sort of interface with the computer system; Most likely a phidget. Audio experiments have been made in “Processing”, however the possibility of change to C# or Java is still possible at this stage of development. Comparing this to the technology behind the “interactive radio” there are some possible areas of influence. In order to save a statement or opinion into the telephone, participants must insert a 'key card' into a slot to trigger the recording process. Not only does this start the recording, it also tells the program which of the 4 objects the user is commenting on. These key cards use a form of RFID ( similar to our Tarot Card RFID system ) to categorise the recordings into certain locations. Once recorded, the sounds are stored in a series of directories which are analysed and read by a Microsoft .NET based system, with the main coding written in C#. The Microsoft .NET structure was chosen because it has the ability to analyse directories and their contents on the fly so as to keep up to date with the amount of .wav recorded data stored on the computer. “The Oracle” was going to use a database to store this information, however it would seem the .NET framework provides a much more efficient and detailed option for data storage and retrieval.
Conclusion
The “Interactive Radio” project is fundamentally very similar to the concepts and ideas that were collected together to make “the oracle”. They both have a strong concept metaphor, they both have elements of physical interaction, they both work with recording conversations and opinions and playing them back to users. There are slight differences in the implementation and in the metaphors used, but the principles behind the two remain the same. After analysing this project for this blog report, I've taken into consideration possible technological implementation techniques that may prove useful when developing the program backbone for “the oracle” itself.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Lecture - Liveblogging
I thought I'd try something different, yay liveblogging, or quasi-live anyway
Megan and I are here, so is mitchell, no sign of pierre. Great lecture turnout today! There's about 22 people! yay!
So we're currently talking about plagarism and assignment 6. People focusing on the same ideas, collusion, things like that. Basically we've got to take it seriously and understand it, but we're not meant to panic.
And now on to assignment 6 itself.
- Deadline for the final assignment is 9:00 Monday the 7th of May.
Public Holiday on monday! So now we're moving to 9:00 TUESDAY morning. Huzzah. Not that we'll really require the extra day, but it would be nice.
oh, Format, that's a good idea :
- Responding in First Person is fine
- Context is a blog post
- Not expecting full blown academic prose ( ie, report )
- It's about "you doing a comparison with your project"
So we're able to write from our perspective, which makes is neat!
What should we look for :
- Audience Experience
- Conceptual and artistic satement
- Constraints
- Technology ( smaller part )
How does this influence our project ? Reflect about what we want to achieve and where we want to head.
"Using (y)our time wisely"
- Concerned about low lecture attendance ( :O )
- Timetabled for teamwork
- Lecturers available for feedback/Questions
- Tutors are paid to help us! excellent.
Proof of Concept
- What is required from us at the end of the semester.
Prototype has to convey the concept.
Exhibit Requirements
- Please Post to Newsgroups ( One Post Per Group )
- Physical Space Required
- Preferences for Specific location
- Any Technology Requirements
- Projector
- Phidgets, sunSPOTs, etc
List Possible Scenarios. Best case, Worst case etc.
Portfolio
- Based around description of design for ubicomp
- html
- use portfolio drive in home directory.
Criteria is still not finished, but start thinking about what is going to be put into the report.
- Extended blog is halfway point to the final portfolio.
- Report is combined with portfolio. Allows for linking, images, all sorts of fun things like that.
And that was the last slide, so I think that's it. There's a few more questions. one about the portfolio system not working, but Im pretty sure it is working - Not using the VPN perhaps ?
And that's it.
Yay liveblogging.
- Anthony
Megan and I are here, so is mitchell, no sign of pierre. Great lecture turnout today! There's about 22 people! yay!
So we're currently talking about plagarism and assignment 6. People focusing on the same ideas, collusion, things like that. Basically we've got to take it seriously and understand it, but we're not meant to panic.
And now on to assignment 6 itself.
- Deadline for the final assignment is 9:00 Monday the 7th of May.
Public Holiday on monday! So now we're moving to 9:00 TUESDAY morning. Huzzah. Not that we'll really require the extra day, but it would be nice.
oh, Format, that's a good idea :
- Responding in First Person is fine
- Context is a blog post
- Not expecting full blown academic prose ( ie, report )
- It's about "you doing a comparison with your project"
So we're able to write from our perspective, which makes is neat!
What should we look for :
- Audience Experience
- Conceptual and artistic satement
- Constraints
- Technology ( smaller part )
How does this influence our project ? Reflect about what we want to achieve and where we want to head.
"Using (y)our time wisely"
- Concerned about low lecture attendance ( :O )
- Timetabled for teamwork
- Lecturers available for feedback/Questions
- Tutors are paid to help us! excellent.
Proof of Concept
- What is required from us at the end of the semester.
Prototype has to convey the concept.
Exhibit Requirements
- Please Post to Newsgroups ( One Post Per Group )
- Physical Space Required
- Preferences for Specific location
- Any Technology Requirements
- Projector
- Phidgets, sunSPOTs, etc
List Possible Scenarios. Best case, Worst case etc.
Portfolio
- Based around description of design for ubicomp
- html
- use portfolio drive in home directory.
Criteria is still not finished, but start thinking about what is going to be put into the report.
- Extended blog is halfway point to the final portfolio.
- Report is combined with portfolio. Allows for linking, images, all sorts of fun things like that.
And that was the last slide, so I think that's it. There's a few more questions. one about the portfolio system not working, but Im pretty sure it is working - Not using the VPN perhaps ?
And that's it.
Yay liveblogging.
- Anthony
Compare and Contrast
Interactive Radio : Exploring Visitor Stories using Radio Interface
Eoin Brazil, Mikael Fernström
Although this wasn't listed in our original ideas, our project has evolved so much that almost none of the original listed ideas would be suitable for comparison.
This project allowed visotrs to explore and investigate artifacts housed within a museum, the "radio" itself stores previously recorded visitor stories, and allows for listening through the metaphor of a "1940's style radio". The repository of opinions grows over time.
This is a good candidate for conmpare and contrast as it deals with a large collection of recorded thoughts and opinions, allows for custom recordings, and uses a strong metaphor with which to recieve the information ( Radio, vs "oracle" ).
http://www.idc.ul.ie/data/publications/28.pdf
Eoin Brazil, Mikael Fernström
Although this wasn't listed in our original ideas, our project has evolved so much that almost none of the original listed ideas would be suitable for comparison.
This project allowed visotrs to explore and investigate artifacts housed within a museum, the "radio" itself stores previously recorded visitor stories, and allows for listening through the metaphor of a "1940's style radio". The repository of opinions grows over time.
This is a good candidate for conmpare and contrast as it deals with a large collection of recorded thoughts and opinions, allows for custom recordings, and uses a strong metaphor with which to recieve the information ( Radio, vs "oracle" ).
http://www.idc.ul.ie/data/publications/28.pdf
Monday, April 16, 2007
WHERE WERE YOU?!
We were asked to blog where we were the monday of the gallery excursion. I find it a bit strange that we *all* have to do this, when only 20 students said they were able to attend. It should be those 20 students, not all of us. Anyway. I wasn't one of those 20. I was working.
Personal Notes
These are just some personal notes for me, more on these later.
Usenet Oracle http://cgi.cs.indiana.edu/~oracle/index.cgi
Tarot Cards RFID - Phidgets
Usenet Oracle http://cgi.cs.indiana.edu/~oracle/index.cgi
Tarot Cards RFID - Phidgets
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
